Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Gemara is in doubt as to whether we go after the eating or after where he took it from.

Question #1: The Gemara later (on Daf 21b) takes for granted that, in the case where 'a dog takes a cake and walks to a haystack', if it then eats it by a common haystack, the owner is Patur?

Question #2: Moreover, the Lashon 'Misgalgel' does not imply that.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it speaks where the fruit is lying in the domain of the Nizak and is rolling towards the street, so that, if the animal had not stopped it with its mouth, it would have eventually ended up in the R'shus ha'Rabim.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and the She'eilah is whether the fruit is considered as if it was lying in the R'shus ha'Rabim or not.

Resolution: The Gemara attempts to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 'A burden which is partially inside ... '; Is this not speaking where it is rolling out, which is the normal way of explaining 'partially inside and partially outside'? ...

Resolution (cont.): ... and he is Chayav even though it would have rolled outside anyway, had the animal not eaten it?

Implied Question: Why does the Tana add 'Achlah ba'Chutz, Patur'?

Answer: It adds 'Achlah ba'Chutz, Patur', on account of the Reisha, even though it is obvious.

Refutation #1: 'Say 'He is Chayav on what is inside' - meaning that on what is fitting to remain inside - it is not going to roll outside.

Refutation #2: Alternatively, it is speaking about stalks of a kind of grass (used as fodder), which are long ...

Chidush: And we would otherwise have thought that we go after the majority of the leaf, whether it is inside or outside.

Answer to Implied Question: Both cases are necessary:

Case #1: The current case, since we might otherwise have said that people tend to place their outer garments in the street and take a rest.

Case #2: ... and the case of 'two cows' to teach us that the owner of the crouching cow is only Chayav if it kicks the one that is walking, but not if the latter stumbles over it ...

Reason: Because 'It ought to have walked on the other side'.

Alternative Explanation: The Gemara could have said that he is Patur even in a case where the Chatzer stands to be rented and the person does not need to rent it, where he does benefit, even though he causes his friend a loss ...

Reason: ... since even where one drives the owner out of his house and locks the door in his face, it is merely G'rama.

Reason: Because as long as people see the current hirer living in the house, they will not inquire about renting it.

Implied Question #1: Even according to the opinion in the first Perek of Bava Basra (Daf 12b) that holds 'We force him on account of 'Midas S'dom' and give him (the portion of a Pashut and that of a B'chor) on the same side ...

Answer: It is different here, since one is able to stop him initially from living in his house.

Implied Question #2: Whereas according to the opinion there that holds that his brothers can claim that they assess the field in question like the property of bar Morion' (which is more valuable than that of other people) ....

Answer: ... that is like preventing one's friend from living in one's house Lechatchilah, but here he is already living there.

Question: In the case cited in 'Eilu Na'aros' (Kesuvos, Daf 30b) where 'Reuven shoved Shimon's Cheilev down Levi's throat', why is Levi Chayav? Bearing in mind that even if he were to sick it up, it would be disgusting and valueless, is it not a case of 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser'?

Answer: It is not comparable, since his benefit there is the direct result of the Chesaron that he caused ...

Precedent: ... similar to the Mishnah which states that if the animal eats from the street, he pays for the animal's Hana'ah; he is not Chayav for the chewing, which is 'Shein in the R'shus ha'Rabim, only for 'the Hana'ah of its stomach', despite the fact that if it were to sick it up, it would not be worth anything.

Refuted Explanation: Not completely, because if so, he would not even be obligated to pay for what he benefited.

Authentic Explanation: Only he resigns himself to the situation; he thinks that they will get spoilt by many people treading on the fruit until it reaches only the value of the benefit that one derives from it.

Explanation #1: It seems from Rashi's words that it is speaking about a wall between the field of the Makif and that of the Nikaf.

Question #1: How is this considered 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Ein Chaser', seeing as the purpose of the wall is to divide between the two sets of fields?

Question #2: Moreover, he ought to have said 'You caused me to make this entire circumference!' whereas'Hekeifa Yeseira' implies that he only caused him to add something?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that it is speaking about the wall that surrounds his fields on the outside, and the 'extra circumference' refers to the expansion of his fields due to the Nikaf's field's existence.

Implied Question: In the actual Mishnah, the word 'Nikaf' does not appear ///

Answer: Only according to the opinion there that establishes it by the field of the Nikaf, the Gemara here infers it.

Clarification: Even the Rabanan only argue because he can say to him 'You caused me to make the additional circumference'.

Question: If 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser' is Patur, then he should be Patur even if the Nikaf built it?

Answer: It is different where the Nikaf got up and built it, since he revealed that he does not object to the extra expense; it is not comparable to 'Someone who lives in his friend's Chatzer, where he has not indicated that he is willing to spend any money.

Clarification: And even the Rabanan only argue because 'The house is Meshu'bad to the attic'.

Clarification: In the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 10b), the Gemara asks that since he stole it, what difference does it make whether it is he or his friend who benefited from it? And the Gemara answers that it is speaking about building-stones that have been handed over to the treasurer of Hekdesh.

Question: Why is he not Mo'el anyway, seeing as he has the intention of acquiring them? ...

Implied Question: ... even according to the opinion in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 41a) that using the object only renders one Chayav if it causes it to depreciate.

Answer: ... since that only speaks where he did not have the intention of acquiring it.

Answer to Original Question: Me'ilah only applies where one has the intention of taking the object out of someone's domain, whereas in this case he thought that the object belonged to him.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he did not actually fix it in the building, so that it is not a Shinuy, which is why he is not Mo'el until he uses the space beneath it.

Question: Even if he were to fix it, he would not acquire it, seeing as it is a Shinuy that can be reverted to its original state ...

Source: ... as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Gozel Kama' (later, on Daf 96b).

Retraction: In fact, Shmuel himself retract, as the Gemara states in Perek ha'Sho'el (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 99b).

.